You don't know his thinking on this. Same thing happens with all the people calling Trump, Hitler. They only know his words, not the thoughts behind them.
Nominee for worst analogy of 2016 already?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You don't know his thinking on this. Same thing happens with all the people calling Trump, Hitler. They only know his words, not the thoughts behind them.
So you know Tim Cook's internal thoughts and/or Trumps internal thoughts? My bad.Nominee for worst analogy of 2016 already?
What's funny about this is that even if they do come up with a hack for this iphone 5c, it doesn't actually have to work on a newer phone.Court order or not if Apple can show they can bypass the security they show a precedence. After that it's only a matter of time until highly knowledgeable hackers will be able to reverse engineer/follow a similar path to unlock any phone... At the very least it may well encourage, directly or not, such behavior.
Oooor, it's possible that following Snowden's revelations and the impact it's had on foreign cybersecurity awareness that the NSA and other US intelligence Operators want to do all they can to convince all the bad guys that iPhone's can't be broke, when they are have been
How's that strike your paranoia bone?
This article is older and in some cases, no longer accurate, but it's a good article to put this all in perspective.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/u...-seek-access-to-encrypted-user-data.html?_r=0
I don't want the government to gain access without relying on the providers to make it happen, individually, and under court order or warrant. I don't want the manufacturers like Google to be forced to provide a method for the government to defeat the encryption or unlock the phone. But I think every data repository, cloud provider, internet and service provider should, under Court Order or Warrant, be able to comply with that warrant. I understand there are legal limitations, that sometimes the courts issue an order that would be too disruptive or burdensome to the business and under judicial review, these instances are an exception where the companies need not comply with the order. But by the same token, I do not think any company should set it's course on purposefully developing their products knowingly creating a situation where they can never comply with valid and reasonable court orders and warrants.
There must be a place in the middle because our government isn't supposed to be serving itself, it's supposed to be serving us. If the government isn't serving us then we have a different problem that we need to focus on, but one is not the other. It is not in our best interest to loose site of this.
Court order or not if Apple can show they can bypass the security they show a precedence. After that it's only a matter of time until highly knowledgeable hackers will be able to reverse engineer/follow a similar path to unlock any phone... At the very least it may well encourage, directly or not, such behavior.
The tricky part is that if there is some obscure way for Apple or Google to disable the security features that means that hackers and criminals and other governments will likely replicate the technique (which kind of invalidates the whole point of encryption to begin with). Unless the ability to crack the phone is so difficult to make the effort undesirable (rewriting the OS and installing new chips on a phone meets that definition), then there is little point in encrypting it all. As the movie War Games said, "Strange game, the only winning move is not to play"
No surprise here, Apple is wrong on this one. Here is my reasoning.
1st and foremost, there is absolutely no justification to take encryption to this level. The idea that an engineered method to access stored encrypted data that is secure for the user yet allows the provider access under court order is frankly, ludicrous and in no way equates to a backdoor.
2nd, the idea that if this get's started where does it end is also wrong, this is not starting something, this is ending something. It ends the requirement for business or individuals to be forced to provide records and evidence when compelled by valid court order, subpoena, or search warrant, and it's wrong and again quite frankly, an ridiculous stance for Apple and others to take. Anyone that thinks they will not be forced to comply is crazy, the Government will crush Apple before they allow Apple to do this. They will impose such penalties that Apple will be financially destroyed. In fact, I imagine Tim Cook will find himself up on criminal charges as well.
3rd, if Apple is so on top of our Privacy, why are the Apps in the App Store still a leaking sieve of personal data?
This is a grandstand play, showtime for the foolish. I can't believe Tim Cook actually thinks he is going to get away with this and again, frankly, I am amazed the Federal Government has shown this much restraint. They are seriously bending over backwards hoping Apple and others will come to the table and figure out a proper solution that serves all of us well, without their having to get rough with Apple and look like the bad guy on this.
I just can't believe guys here in this forum are falling for this ridiculous argument that the only way to engineer a method of accessing data on the phone is to create a weakness in it's protective code.
Again I will bring up one last point. If the Federal Government allows Apple to get over on this, the result will be that no one will be able to force anyone into giving up any records of anything at all if it is protected in this manner. All any business would have to do is contract out their data storage to a Cloud Service Provider who uses the same encryption protection schemes and that's that. None of us will ever be able to sue any business ever again with any chance of winning. What Apple is playing with is fucking wrong.
I understand everyone has a certain level of disdain or distrust of the government, it's healthy to a degree, keeps a person watching and paying a little attention. But that system, the government, it's supposed to be there for us. Just look through today's news and imagine all the court cases going on where investigators find evidence of wrongdoing then imagine that proof being inaccessible and the wrong doers untouchable. Be careful what you ask for.
Really? And why can't the designed and purposefully engineered method be encrypted with keys held by the vendor so that the only way someone can replicate what the vendor does is if they have the vendor's keys and the software/hardware behind the method itself.
The issue here is one of absolutes. Apple has set out to engineer absolute security for the data owner regardless that circumstances exist in which it is fully reasonable to be able to gain access to the same data.
In two years some brilliant bio-engineer is going to develop the one and only possible cure for cancer, it'll be on his phone, and in his excitement to tell the world that millions don't have to die and suffer horrible treatments, he'll have a stroke and his cure will be lost to the world forever. Oops
I can't believe that these very smart engineers can't come up with a way to provide the best possible privacy for their customers while still allowing themselves to access data on the phones when properly justified.
And what happens in a week or two when some brilliant little hacker in Sweden or Germany hacks the damn phone anyway, just like all the previous iPhones. Remember, encrypted data or not, all you have to do is figure out how to unlock it, then the encrypted data is naked and completely vulnerable.
Neither of those cases apply. Just because there is an exploit in one subsystem doesn't mean they all have exploits.Every iPhone get's hacked for the since 2007 and suddenly people think hackers need the manufacturer to show them it's a possibility or provide some form of incentive
Apple's iPhone Gets Hacked
iPhone 5S Fingerprint Hacked
Just because a judge asks for something doesn't mean it can feasibly be done. What if the judge asks for flying unicorns? Does apple have to suddenly figure out how to bioengineer them? Suppose the judge orders apple to assassinate someone? Does that mean they should comply? Same with the judge ordering them to figure out a way to hack their own secure phones.
This is some really bad tinfoil hat logic.
Why on earth can't the Supreme Court hear the case, if it goes that far?
It's one case and asks for very specific access to a single phone, that belonged to a terrorist asshat now dead.
The government will prevail in this case and it should.
The fact that you believe that something like this can remain in control of the vendor and not stolen by the government or any other entity makes me laugh.
Once pandora's box is open, the government can just issue FISA requests to apple and gag order them to never say a peep. We've already seen them try to do this to companies. The fact that you think this will be any different is laughable.
Jack Sparrow: I know those cannons. It's the Pearl.
Man in Jail: The Black Pearl? I've heard stories. She's been preying on ships and settlements for near ten years. Never leaves any survivors.
Jack Sparrow: No survivors? Then where do the stories come from, I wonder?
Neither of those cases apply. Just because there is an exploit in one subsystem doesn't mean they all have exploits.
Wow, pull bullshit outa your ass much?
Then why is this in the papers?
Reminds me of that line from Pirates of the Caribbean;
Is your argument that, because the iphone isn't 100% secure, we should deliberately weaken its security further?Really, because suddenly the unbreakable unhackable 100% secure iPhone is a sure thing and you would bet your life on it?
I bet that never crossed their minds. I am sure they would much rather have subpoena splashed all over the news. You should send them an email and let them in on your secret.A good detective would get the information from another source or figure out the password. Not much detective work goes into having a key to a door.
Soooooooo, useless court order then?Every iPhone get's hacked for the since 2007 and suddenly people think hackers need the manufacturer to show them it's a possibility or provide some form of incentive
Apple's iPhone Gets Hacked
iPhone 5S Fingerprint Hacked
Once you give the gov't the keys to the castle you can't get them back
If it is so easy to hack then why do they need Apple's help to rewrite the OS? I would have to imagine that the FBI, CIA, and NSA employ a couple of hackers. Wouldn't they have quietly unlocked the phone back in December, if it was that easy? The fact that they are so publicly trying to unlock it (where anyone who may have been in contact with the killers is now able to run for the hills) would seem to indicate that the device is secure and reasonably difficult to hack.Really, because suddenly the unbreakable unhackable 100% secure iPhone is a sure thing and you would bet your life on it?
They are trying to crack the password, but they only get 4 chances before the device cleans itself.A good detective would get the information from another source or figure out the password. Not much detective work goes into having a key to a door.
I dunno, so maybe they can copy the OS and then have the ability to apply this versus everything?If it is so easy to hack then why do they need Apple's help to rewrite the OS?
And if this is the case...They are trying to crack the password, but they only get 4 chances before the device cleans itself.
And if this is the case...
Apple demands widow get court order to access dead husband's password
About 1 month ago, Apple tells someone they need a court order to access a password from a dead person.
My argument is that in the first place, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to what the FISA Court is and what it does. It's not really all your fault, you are just relying on media reporters and frankly they range from inept to unethical. I read far more terrible news reports, if you can call them that, than I read good responsible ones. So it's no wonder that they so often misrepresent the truth to push an agenda and that isn't just on privacy issues.This is in the papers because they haven't done that to Apple yet? Obviously? "Once Pandora's box is open" is pretty clearly in the future tense.
Is your argument that, because the iphone isn't 100% secure, we should deliberately weaken its security further?
That is totally different, the FBI has more than likely received any passwords that Apple has access to for this user.
Most likely from Tim Cook's letter, "When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal."And you'll pulled this rabbit from where ?
I also forgot about the Lavabit email service too. Completely shut down because the owner wouldn't release the SSL keys for decrypt. I think it would be a lot harder for them to shut down Apple.
The statement made by Tim Cook where he said they provided all the data in there possession, which if you apply logic would include any stored passwords they had or had the ability to reset.And you'll pulled this rabbit from where ?